Bureaucratic Reform in Indonesia : Innovations, Challenges and Typologies

Pratiwi

Center for Research, Education and Training of Apparatus I

National Institute of Public Administration, Republic of Indonesia

Jl. Kiara Payung km. 4,7 Jatinangor, Sumedang, Jawa Barat, INDONESIA

Contact : pratiwisaja@gmail.com

2014 International Institute of Administrative Science – Asian Group for Public Administration

(IIAS-AGPA) Conference

Sub theme 3: Opportunities, Challenges, Learnings and Innovations in Asian Public Service

Jakarta, 27-29 August 2014

Abstract: This research aims to describe bureaucratic reform strategies in local governments in

Indonesia. Since Indonesia faces challenges in Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) due to

inefficient government bureaucratic, bribery, corruption, poor ethics in national labor force and

inadequate infrastructure [1]; central government emphasizes to reform bureaucracy in both

central government and local government. Reform policies were executed by Ministry of

Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform (MAEBR) regulations about Bureaucratic

Reform Grand Design and Bureaucratic Reform Road Map. 10 local governments in provincial

and municipal levels were chosen as research locus. Using interview guide and documents

analysis, this research highlights challenges, innovations, and typologies of bureaucratic reform

in local governments. Paternalistic culture, unclear human resource planning, road map

operation difficulties, inefficient public service procedures, and overlapping policies are

identified as bureaucratic reform challenges. However, the challenges encourage local

governments to overcome problems through innovations in public service, public participation,

rewards system, restructuring organization and productivity measurements. Although some

local governments do innovations, others have different acts in reforming bureaucratic. This

research also reveals 4 typologies of bureaucratic reform in local government in Indonesia; 1)

Local governments that do innovations but they do not have any bureaucratic reform road map

as guidance; 2) Local governments that do innovations and they made bureaucratic reform road

map; 3) Local governments that do not do anything to overcome their problems and they do not

have bureaucratic reform road map; and 4) Local governments that do not do innovations but

the made the bureaucracy reform roadmap. Strong leadership, willingness to change, and

participation are identified as the main factors that dominantly influence bureaucratic reform in

local government.

Key words; bureaucratic reform, innovation, strategy, local government.

Introduction

Indonesia faces challenges in economic development. World Economic Forum reported

that Indonesia increased it ranks from 52nd to 38th in Global Competitiveness Index 2013-1014.

The index was measured by following indicators; 1) Institutions, 2) Infrastructure, 3)

Macroeconomic environment, 4) Health and primary education, 5) Goods market efficiency, 6)

Labor market effieciency, 7) Financial market development, 8) Technological readiness, 9)

Market size, 10) Innovation, and 12) Business sophistication. The report noted bribery and

security as two dark spots that could be obstacles for competitiveness.1

Concern with the relationship between bribery, security and government effectiveness is

of course, not new. Compare to Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Philipines and Singapore,

Indonesia got the lowest score for Government Effectiveness Index in 2012 that was measured

from public service quality, bureaucratic independence from political pressures, public policy

quality and government’s commitment credibility. Inneficient bureaucratic in applying for

business llicenses and ilegal tax are two main factors that lowering Indonesia’s government

effectiveness index.

Bribery and illegal tax are two factors that lowering public trust and economic

development. Bureaucratic reform in other ASEAN countries such as Malaysia and Singapore

showed some progress in boosting public trust and economic development. Siddique noted that

before bureaucratic reform was executed, Malaysian goverment was criticized for lack of

accountability and public service inneficiency.2 New Public Management (NPM) was used by

the government to reform public service. The government applied decentralization in public

service delivery and e-government to increase public satisfaction, however corruption still

remains main problem in reforming government in Malaysia.

Bureaucratic reform in Singapore resulted different output. Public sector has important

role to enhance economy performance of Singapore. One main factor that triggered Singapore to

reform the government is weak foreign investment.3 Many investors are looking for other

cheaper countries in investing. Public sector reform was executed due to opening massive

investment and cooperation opportunities with the government and provide incentives to

investors.

Another study about the urgency of bureaucratic reform practice has showed in Chinese

government case. Bureaucratic reform in China aimed to improve governance in China by

increasing accountability, predictability, transparency, participation, and efficiency and

effectiveness. The reforms were so extensive, touching recruitment and selection, training,

appraisal, rewards and punishments, compensation, discipline, and other areas. Government

capacity has improved during past ten years reform. Leadership and change in education system

in China were claimed as dominant factors that influenced the reform.4

Considering best practice and progress results of bureaucratic reform in some countries,

Indonesian government has been applying bureaucratic reform. Although political reform has

1 Scwab, Klaus, Sala-i-Martín, Xavier and Brende, Børge. The Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 Full Data

Edition. Geneva : World Economic Forum, 2013. Page 35. 2 Noore Alam Siddique (2006). Public Management Reform in Malaysia : Recent Initiatives and Experiences in

International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 19 No. 4. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Page 339-358. 3 Henry Wai-Chung Yeung (2000) . State Intervention and Neoliberalsm in the Globalizing World Economy: Lessons

from Singapore’s Regionalization Programmme in Pacific Review. Page 62-133. 4 John P Burns (2007). Civil Service Reform in China in OECD Journal in Budgeting Vol .7 No. 1. Page 1-25.

begun in 1998, Indonesian government seemed to have unclear system and standard for

government reform since then. Therefore, bureaucratic reform policies was designed in 2008 to

enhance public service accountability, reduce corruption and increase competitiveness index.

Indonesian government has been applying centralized bureaucratic reform policies. Ministry of

Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform (MAEBR) has the authority to control and

evaluate the bureaucratic reform implementation in each local government program. Presidential

Regulation No. 81/ 2010 about 2010-2025 Bureaucratic Reform Grand Design and MAEBR

Regulation No. 20/ 2010 about 2010-2014 Bureaucratic Reform Road Map were legalized as

central regulation about mechanism of bureaucratic reform. Qualities in eight areas of

bureaucracy such as institutional approach, procedure, legislation, human resources, supervision

mechanism, accountability, public service and mind set are used as bases of bureaucratic reform

programs.

However, the centralized bureaucratic reform policies brought critics because it is unclear

whether the Indonesian Government can achieve stated goals because the reform road map is

designed without clear conceptual structures and causal linkages.5 Therefore, this paper aims at

identifying local government bureaucratic reform strategies, challenges, innovations, and

initiatives.

Innovation as Bureaucratic Reform Concept

Innovation can be defined as inventing something new, generating new ideas only,

improving something that already exists, following the market leader and attracting innovative

people.6 The concept contains the idea of reforming bureacracy. Bureaucratic reform is an effort

to change the bureaucratic from the status quo to meritocracy, better policies and public service.

In context of Indonesia, bureaucratic reform is urgently needed to improve public trust, citizen

development, public budgeting effectiveness and economic development. The initiatives and

methods of bureaucratic reform could be out of the box or something that never be done before.

Same activity that is adopted from an institution could be innovation for another different

organization improvement that never applies that. It can be concluded that innovation has two

aspects; applying something new and improvement. Bureaucratic reform comes as manifestation

of innovation in public institution context.

Bureucracy reform implementation in public organization can not be separated from the

role and authority of the institution and leadership. Leadership capacity is a critical factor

influencing bureaucratic reform.7 Fernandez and Rainey describes eight factors that contribute

for successful implementation of bureaucratic reform such as;8

5 Jin-Wook Choi. (2009, October 22-24). What Holds Indonesia Back? Structural Roots of Corruption and Reform.

Paper presented at the 2009 Korean Association for Public Administration International. University of Incheon at

Songdo Campus, Korea. 6 Eleanor D. Glor (2006) A Gardener Innovator’s Guide to Innovating in Organizations. Ottawa: The Innovation

Journal. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/books.htm. 7 Armenarkis, Harris & Field (1999). Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. New York : Marcel Dekker. Page. 58;

John Kotter (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2). Page. 59-67; Abramson & Lawrence (2001) The Challenge of Transforming Organizations: Lesson Learned about Revitalizing Organizations. In Transforming Organizations, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Page 1-10. 8 Sergio Fernandez & Hal. G. Rainey (2006) Managing Succesful Organizational Change in Public Sector in Public

Administration Review Ed. Maret-April 2006. Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell. Page. 168-176.

1. Ensure the need.

Organization need helps to convince all relevant actors. Ensuring the need is important to

define change direction as stated in vision and mision. Organizational change vision must

represent future target that is easily to be communicated and feasible to achieve. Vision need to

be stipulated to misions, spesific indicators and programs. Ensuring the need usually is identified

by questioning existing organizational problems.

Some studies in private institutions indicated that it would be easier for leaders who use

spesific vision to convince organizational members about the change project. Vision as identified

from organizational problems would rise awareness, hopes, relief organizational discomfort and

solutions of problems.9 Persuading organizational members can be materialized through oral or

written communication that open participation for all members in changing process.

2. Provide a plan

Clear vision and persuasion to all organizational members is not enough to make the

comprehensive organizational changes come true. As stated by Kotter (1995), ideas in the vision

must be transformed into strategies, actions plan, targets and targets achievment planning.

Reform strategies can be arranged in reform road map that gives directions how to achieve

targets or indicators, identify risks and obstacles. Planning bureaucraticreform road map requires

some aspects such as clear accountability standards, clear indicators, and interrelated programs.

3. Build Internal Support for Change and Overcome Resistance

Building internal support in implementing bureaucratic reform is important to reduce

internal resistance and enhance organization members participation. Participation can be

manifestated from delegation and discretion in decision making to lower management level.

However, bureaucratic reform in political process to gather supports from all of the stakeholders

for change.

Raising the internal support mechanism can be done through discussions with the leaders

of the organization to identify external challenges and disseminating what kind of internal

changes needed to get rid of the external challenges. Some instances of external challenges are

the results of a survey about the service organization and supervision result from higher

institutions.

Judson identified several tactics that can be done by a leader to reduce resistance to

change, such as coercion, criticism, persuasion, incentive systems, and guarantee against loss, for

example by offering certainty promotion, training, psychological support, and implement

informal events to build member loyalty. The role of the leader is still needed is dominant in

mobilizing internal support.10

4. Ensure Top-Management Support and Commitment

Gathering supports from top management is necessary to build a coalition. Coalition of

changes consisting of employees from top management will have the authority to oversee,

implement, arrange resources, and emotionally pushed their staff to participate in monitoring the

changes and bureaucratic reform. Kotter recommends that change coalition is needed to be

9Vries & Balazs (1999). Transforming the Mind-Set of The Organization in Administration Society 30 (6). Page. 75.

10Arnold Judson (1991). Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change. Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell.

formed prior to gather the support of all members.11

Aucoin noted reform failure in Canada

happened because of lack of support from cabinet ministers. Not all of the actors were concerned

about the reform process. Thus, the coalition leaders change is needed as prerequisite for

bureaucratic reform.12

5. Build External Support

External support can be infrastructure funding, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),

and training programs from donor institutions. External actors can be convinced by providing

legal documents including reform planning and bureaucratic reform agenda. External support can

be an alternative resource to change.

6. Provide Resources

Resource mapping helps to identify feasibility of all support and increase success posibility of

the programs. Resource mapping can be manifestated as strategic planning changes, training for

employees, build new systems and procedures, organizational restructuring and identify

innovations planned. Failure in resource mapping and resource provision leads to weak reform

implementation and interpersonal stress. Thus, mapping and provision of the necessary resources

based reform objectives is needed.

7. Institutionalize Change

Each organization member shall start new habits to be applied every day due to

implementing change programs. The habits can be formed from new policies and planned

innovations. Changes in personal habits of each member leads to institutional change. Employees

must learn and make the behavior into the spirit of reform that is institutionalized by leaders to

form a pattern of reform and replace the old work culture that is not effective. There are certain

evidence of creating in new habit in some cities and municipals in Indonesia. For instance,

Bandung City Mayor, Ridwan Kamil who implement new policy that mandates all civil servants

to use bycycle every friday to reduce traffic jam and weather pollution. Another new habit

dissemination can be seen at Banda Aceh City. Since 2012, the government of Banda Aceh City

has been applying electronic performance (e-performance) to measure all civil servants outputs

everyday. This application can only be entered by civil servant at the day they work, they can not

enter the application in another day. Thus, through the application, civil servants are forced to

result certain working outputs each day.

Habits can be created from trigger or problem that forces to change. The trigger creates

routine and routine leads to benefit or reward.13

In the context of organizational reform, reward

can be a better system and better public service. Thus, individual rewards is just as important as

the overall organizational benefit. New habit and behavior can be shaped by the changing

leadership structure, work procedures, human resource management, and activities. Innovations

developed by leaders can be disseminated through a pilot project, data collection for processes of

change and commitment to change members of the organization and involve the active

participation of employees in an employee.

11

Kotter, John (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2). Page. 95 12

Pater Aucoin (1990). The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. 13

Charles Duhigg (2012). The Power of Habit : Why We Do What We Do and How to Change. London: Random House Books. Page. 286.

8. Pursue Comprehensive Change

Implementing change project needs cooperations from all level of organizational actors.

Comprehensive systemic change starts from the smallest organizational unit subsystem.

Subsystem changes can be done with the smallest organization involved subsystems leaders or

officials who are in middle management.

Bureucracy Reform Policies in Indonesia

Although political and economic reform has begun in 1998, bureaucratic reform in

Indonesia was still partial and not comprehensive. The changes did not cover all aspects.

Therefore, the government issued various policies regarding the importance of bureaucratic

reform.

In 1998, the Assembly of Public Deliberation/ Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR)

issued Decree No. XI / MPR / 1998 on State Implementation of Clean Government and Free of

Corruption, which is then followed by the issuance of Law No. 28 of 1999 on State

Implementation of Clean and Free of Corruption and Law No. 31 of 1999 which later converted

into Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption. The government subsequently issued

Law No. 20 of 2012 on the Corruption Eradication Commission/ Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi

(KPK) as the institution that has mandate to crack down corruption in Indonesia.

Bureaucratic reform in Indonesia started to have clearer direction since 2010. To

implement bureaucratic reform, the government issued Presidential Regulation No. 81 of 2010

about Bureaucratic Reform Grand Design of 2010-2025 and MAEBR Regulation No. 10 of 2011

about Bureaucratic Reform Road Map for the implementation of change management programs.

Various policy is expected to become the basis for the development of various programs of

bureaucratic reform at both the national and regional levels.

As stated in Bureaucratic Reform Grand Design and Road Map, there are eight areas of

change that targeted to achieve bureaucratic reform abjectives. These eight areas are:

Table 1

Aspects and Expected Outputs of Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap in Indonesia

Aspect Expected Outputs

Organization Proper organization function and right size structured organization.

Procedures Clear, effective and efficient work procedures according to the principles

of good governance.

Law Legislation order, no overlapping laws.

Human resources Competence human resources apparatus.

Supervision Supervision for good governance, free of corruption, collusion and

nepotism.

Accountability Clear and transparent performance report.

Public Service Excellent public service based on the demands of society.

Aspect Expected Outputs

Apparatus mind set

and culture set

Integrity mindset and working culture.

Source : MAEBR Regulation No. 10 of 2011 about Bureaucratic Reform Road Map

Methodology

The object of this research is focused on bureaucratic reform strategies and the obstacles

in local governments. This study gathered information on matters related to the efforts of the

changes made in local governments. By employing grounded theory method, this study

describes the strategy of bureaucratic reform in Indonesian local governments context. Locus of

research including local governments in Indonesia that are determined based on the following

criteria:

1. Local governments that were chose as pilot projects for bureucracy reform

implementation;

2. Local governments which has started reform initiatives.

3. Local governments which has not been informed about bureaucracy reform road map

mechanism.

There are 10 areas that the object of research based on criterias mentioned above. Those

10 local governments are Yogyakarta Province, West Java Province, Banten Province, Banda

Aceh City, Cimahi City, Surabaya City, Denpasar City, Cirebon City, Sukabumi Municipal and

Gresik Municipal. Although the research was conducted using grounded research method, it is

needed to formulate aspects of research question in this study so that there are clear boundaries

and directions that could build the same understanding of the substance of this study.

Bureaucratic reform strategy in this study is defined as a actions of change that taken in

scope of local government bureaucracy. Aspects in this study refers to the aspects of change that

are based on two categories; Conceptual basis, and the policy basis. Conceptual basis refer to the

5 (five) strategies offered by Dwiyanto such as; 1) Strengthening legal basic, 2) Restructuring

bureaucracy, 3) Reforming human resources, 4) Reforming payroll system, 5) Increasing public

organization accountability.14

Policy basis in this study covers eight aspects of change as stated

in Regulation of MAEBR No. 20 of 2010 about Bureucratic Reform Road Map.

The basis mentioned above were used as tools to analyze primary and secondary data.

Primary data gathered from interviews and Focus Group Discussion (FGD), while secondary

data derived from official documents issued by the government, literature, journals, papers and

other articles.

Results

1. Bureaucracy Reform in West Java Province

Bureaucratic reform in West Java is focused in four aspects; 1) Enhancing public servic,

2) Enhancing nine government management, 3) Developing remuneration based on performance

system and 4) Arranging task force of change management. The program to materialize those

aspects are;

14

Agus Dwiyanto (2011). Mengembalikan Kepercayaan Publik Melalui Reformasi Birokrasi. Jakarta: Gramedia. Page. 173.

Table 2

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in West Java Province

Aspect Programs

Organization Assesing local governments sectoral organizations, arranging public

service organization profile, and work load analysis.

Procedures Evaluating Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) and Public Service

Minimum Standard and developing Jabar Cyber Province.

Law Local Government Legislation Program and renewing governor regulation

about public service and apparatus performance.

Human resources Developing merit system in recruitment, career pattern, competency

standards, grading individual performance system, and remuneration

based on performance.

Supervision Implementing Internal Public Sevice Organization Supervision and

enhancing apparatus role in supervising as quality assurance and

consulting.

Accountability Developing performance indicators into the lowest organizations and

arranging monitoring and evaluation.

Public Service Fixing performance target in public service, gathering ISO standards and

developing service standards.

Apparatus mind set

and culture set

Arranging Task Force of Change Management to plan, implement and

evaluate bureaucratic reform programs.

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of West Java Province in May 2013

Although all programs has written down in bureaucracy reform roadmap, unclear vision

is still an obstacle for the implementation. The urgent need of reform can not be identified in the

road map as well. Bureaucracy reform programs in West Java Province seemed just a list of

prerequisites of good governance but those programs did not make any significant change unless

enhaced apparatus remuneration.

2. Bureaucracy Reform in Yogyakarta Province

Before MAEBR mandated for road map of bureaucratic reform, Government of

Yogyakarta Province has begun their own change project. The government has been cooperating

with third party in reform partnership since 1999. Reform program is focused on Integrated Civil

Service Reform (ICSR). ICSR has following objectives such as;

a. Building agreements about planning, coordinating, enhancing public service,

development implementating, empowerment and building organizational values.

b. Improving internal and external organization procedures.

c. Building appaaratus competency standards.

d. Developing asset grading system and public financial system based on performance.

e. Creating effective supervision system.

f. Developing good governance culture.

Although the ICSR was manifestated in some programs, performance culture,

overlapping local government regulations, organization, apparatus incompetence, supervision

and performance accountability are still identified as challenges. Therefore, based on the

bureaucratic reform roadmap, eight aspects of bureaucratic reform were developed in following

programs;

Table 3

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Yogyakarta Province

Aspect Programs and Innovations

Organization Restructuring organizations, function auditing, developing integrated

public license service and Rehabilitation Bureau for People with

Disabilities and Non-Structural Organization Evaluation.

Procedures Arranging SOP, developing performance assets standards, and e-

government.

Law Indentifying overlapping regulations from provincial until central

government level, legal and drafting training for apparatus, building

partnership with Ministry of Human Rights and Law and disseminating

Local Government Regulation Draft to the community through mass

media to gather participation in regulation making.

Human resources Developing apparatus competency standards, online attendance grading,

remuneration based on performance, engaging public university and

information technology in recruiting new civil servants.

Supervision Special investigation for public service complaints.

Accountability Building multi-stakeholders participation forum for planning, increasing

public financial planner capacity, and building information system for

public finance.

Public Service Regulating public service guarantee.

Apparatus mind set

and culture set

Arranging and disseminating governor regulation about Satriya

Government Culture.

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Yogyakarta Province in May 2013

3. Bureaucracy Reform in Banten Province

Unclear standards in public service performance output and recuriting structural officers

and staff are main problems that were identified by government of Banten Province. Therefore,

they arranged following bureaucratic programs;

Table 4

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Banten Province

Aspect Programs

Organization Restructuring organizations and arranging job and work load analysis.

Procedures Facilitating SOP arrangement, arranging Governor Regulation about

assets and developing e-government.

Law Synchronizing overlapping regulations and supervising legal products in

municipals and city level.

Human resources Arranging Governor Regulation about competency standards,

remuneration based on performance, job analysis, trainings and

recruitment based on merit system.

Supervision Developing public service complain unit, enhancing internal audit, and

creating monitoring and evaluation team for corruption erradication.

Accountability Arranging accountability reports andperformance indicators and reporting

apparatus personal assets.

Public Service Grading public service standards towards relevant organization providers,

developing citizen satisfactory survey and arranging Governor Regulation

about public service.

Apparatus mind set

and culture set

Arranging workshop about culture set and integrity mind set to enhance

performance motivation.

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Banten Province in May 2013

4. Bureaucracy Reform in Denpasar City

Compare to other local governments capital of Bali Province has different initiatives of

bureaucratic reform including local values dissemination. Bureaucratic reform in Denpasar City

is focused on public service as the government found many problems there. Reinterpretation,

reintegration and adaptation are defined as three main concepts of bureaucracy reform in

Denpasar. Reinterpretation means that understanding central bureaucratic reform policies in the

context of local value. Reintegration means gathering resources and existing aspects in

supporting reform programs. Adaptation means to adopt the bureucratic reforms aspects to local

value and resources. Those three aspects are considerations for following bureaucratic reform

programs;

Table 5

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Denpasar City

Aspect Programs and Innovations

Procedures Gathering ISO certificates in public service.

Law Preparing and providing mayor regulation about public service reform

programs.

Human resources Enhancing training for public apparatus.

Accountability Applying Government Resource Management System (GRMS),

electronic auditing, and gathering ISO 9001-2000 certificate in public

service.

Public Service a. Developing single window integrated public service

b. Developing electronic commerce

c. Developing online public school student admission

d. Developing Call Centre Save Community

e. Developing Public Radio of Denpasar City

f. Developing online payment for water bills

g. Developing “Drive Thru” service for motor vehicles testing

h. Developing Mobile Community Access Point for free internet

i. Developing mobile identity card service

j. Applying free bussiness licence as incentive for bussiness that

have investment more than 50 millions rupiah.

k. Developing partnership in local enterpreneurship with private

Banks

l. Traditional market revitalization

m. Empowering local micro financial organization

n. Developing bussiness incubator for small industries

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Denpasar City in May 2013

5. Bureucracy Reform in Surabaya City

Surabaya City was noted in many local government awards, for instance, the best city in

Indonesia for information technology management in 2011, ASEAN Environmentally

Sustainable City in 2011, United Nations Awards for The 2013 Asian Townscape Award, Asia

Pacific Future Government Awards and many more in the context of national awards. Since

2008, government of Surabaya City has been developing some change projects depends on

existing problems. As the mayor, Tri Rismaharini has the competence to plan, manage and

evaluate because she was the head of city planning before she committed in politics in the city

general election. Based on interview, many change projects in Surabay City are initiated from

anxiety of existing city problems. However, the problems has been triggered the government to

execute following programs without any road map;

Table 6

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Surabaya City

Aspect Programs and Innovations

Organization Restructuring organizations, from 31 education units to 5 education units.

Procedures a. Developing e-musrenbang, an electronic application to check and

Aspect Programs and Innovations

verify city planning steps by all stakeholders.

b. Developing e-budgeting as checking tool for public budgeting that

can be accessed by all sectoral and supporting public organizations

in Surabaya.

c. Developing e-procurement

d. Developing e-performance

Human resources a. Developing online civil servant recruitment

b. Developing partnership with Airlangga University in assessing

competency of employees.

Public Service a. Online retribution and non-retribution license

b. Developing e-health

c. Developing e-education

d. Developing e-public service monitoring with 249 CCTV cameras

e. Gathering ISO certificates for public services

f. Developing Free Smoking and Free Drugs Community

g. Developing enterpreneurship training based on local resource

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Surabaya City in May 2013

Overall, the government of Surabaya City has not developed the bureaucratic reform road

map yet, but some changes worked. However, respondents perceived some obstacles in

reforming bureaucracy such as planning and reporting overlapping policies from central

government. There are many planning and reporting documents that shall be provided by local

government for different ministry in same substantive and issues. Therefore, they have

difficulties in materialize program indicators.

6. Bureaucracy Reform in Cimahi City

There are some reform programs in Cimahi City. However, in some aspects, the

programs can not be implemented because of interest conflict between bureaucracy and political

officers, for instance in restructuring organization and staffing policy.

Table 7

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Cimahi City

Aspect Programs

Procedures a. Enhancing scope of license service

b. Developing single window integrated public service

Law a. Synchronizing local and central government policy about single

window public service

Human resources a. Building partnership with independent third party in civil servant

recruitment.

Public Service a. Short Message Service (SMS) for gathering complaints in public

service

b. Developing e-procurement

c. E-ID card

Aspect Programs

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Cimahi City in May 2013

7. Bureaucracy Reform in Cirebon City

Bureaucracy reform in Cirebon City is focused on improving human resources and

applying merit system such as arranging job analysis, remuneration besed on performance and

transparent recruitment. However, unclear basics to grade employees performance is identified

as challenge to the government change project.

8. Bureaucracy Reform in Banda Aceh City

The government of Banda Aceh City has been applying bureaucratic reform since 2008,

two years before central government mandated for bureaucratic reform road map. Bureaucratic

reform was initiated by Organization Unit in Local Government Secretary. The initiative was

started by a young employee who had anxiety about the absence of merit system. The employee

started to propose his electronic performance idea to teh structural officers and it was accepted to

improve quality and quantity of civil servant working outputs. The e-performance software now

is adapted by other local governments. However, the initiatives followed by some change

programs such as;

Table 8

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Banda Aceh City

Aspect Programs

Organization Developing internal evaluation for job and work load analysis based on e-

performance result.

Human resources a. Developing e-performance that mandates all employees to enter

their daily output online.

b. Developing regulation to all departments to give chance to all

employees for training each year.

Supervision a. Developing e-procurement

Accountability a. Arranging training for transparent and measurable institutional

accountability report.

Public Service a. Developing complaint service unit

b. Developing Banda Aceh Cyber City by providing free internet

acces in public spaces.

Apparatus mind set

and culture set

Creating following habits:

a. Giving chances to many young employees to be instructors for

organizational training, it is expected to enhance their public

speaking and leading competency.

b. Giving chance to every employee to give speech or motivational

quotes in daily morning ceremony. Civil servants in local

government in Indonesia have to attend daily morning ceremony

and usually speech is given by structural officer or middle

management people, but in Banda Aceh City, every employee has

chance to give speech.

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Banda Aceh in May 2013

9. Bureaucracy Reform in Gresik Municipal

Even though bureaucratic reform road map had not been developed in Gresik Municipal,

but recent initiatives in public service in Gresik have started. The government created Sunan Giri

Awards to enhance public service performance. The award was given by the regent for villages

that are best in public service. The indicators of the awards are simple such as availability of

SOP and good public service facilities. The winner of the award gets cow to be bred, if the

winner sells the cow, the award will be cancelled.

There are two another innovations of the government. In municipal level, public service

is opened longer than usual from eight hours to 12 hours. The government applied conpetency

test for structural officers to improve the performance.

10. Bureaucracy Reform in Sukabumi Municipal

Sukabumi municipal is one of the pilot projects of bureaucratic reform. The regent had

training of bureaucratic reform held by Ministry of Interior and Harvard Kennedy School.

However, after some programs have executed, corruption in providing assets, too many rules, the

absence of merit system, and the absence of public service complaint unit are identified as dark

spots. The reform programs are described in following table;

Table 9

Bureaucratic Reform Programs in Sukabumi Municipal

Aspect Programs

Procedures Arranging and disseminating SOP to all stakeholders

Human resources a. Developing transparent recruitment

b. Developing career pattern

c. Developing competency standards

Supervision a. Developing wealth reports of state officials in partnership with

KPK.

b. Developing gratification complaint unit.

c.

Public Service a. Gathering ISO certificates

b. Enhancing public satisfactory survey.

Source : Interview towards reform stakeholders of Sukabumi Municipal in May 2013

Conclusion

This research showed four Typologies of bureaucratic reform in local government in

Indonesia; 1) Local Governments that do innovations but they do not have any bureaucratic

reform road map as guidance such as Banda Aceh City, Surabaya City and Denpasar City; 2)

Local Governments that do innovations and they made bureaucratic reform road map such as

Yogyakarta Province, Gresik Municipal and Cimahi City; 3) Local Governments that do not do

anything to Overcome Reviews their problems and they do not have bureaucratic reform road

map such as Cirebon City; and 4) the Local Governments that do not do the innovations but

made the bureaucracy reform roadmap, such as Sukabumi Municipal, Banten Province and West

Java Province. Strong leadership, willingness to change, and participation are identified as the

main factors that influence dominantly bureaucratic reform in local government.

It can be concluded that even though most of the respondents provided bureaucratic

reform road map, significant changes can not be identified. Centralized and formalistic

bureaucratic reform that require reform documents can be conterproductive to the substantive of

bureaucratic reform. The conterproductive results can be seens from following aspects;

a. High cost bureaucracy because of remuneration system that has unclear measurement for

performance.

b. Too many rules and regulations lead to innefective law order, innefficient public service

procedures, and roadmap operation difficulties.

c. Political bureaucracy

d. Lowering trust between local and central governments as roadmap is an mandatory.

However in other locus such as Surabaya City, Banda Aceh City, Denpasar City and

Banda Aceh City who have no guide or roadmap have resulted significant changes. It is needed

to underline some significance factor such as ensuring the need of reform that was identified

from anxiety of things that are not right in the bureaucracy and interpersonal stress from leaders

or initiators. This study showed urgent focuses of most local governments needs of reform such

as human resource and public service.

References

Armenarkis, Harris & Field (1999). Handbook of Organizational Behaviour. New York : Marcel

Dekker. Page. 58; John Kotter (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts

Fail. Harvard Business Review 73 (2). Page. 59-67; Abramson & Lawrence (2001) The

Challenge of Transforming Organizations: Lesson Learned about Revitalizing

Organizations in Transforming Organizations, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Aucoin, Pater (1990). The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective.

Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy.

Burnsl, John P (2007). Civil Service Reform in China in OECD Journal in Budgeting Vol .7 No.

1.

Choi, Jin-Wook. (2009, October 22-24). What Holds Indonesia Back? Structural Roots of

Corruption and Reform. Paper presented at the 2009 Korean Association for Public

Administration International. University of Incheon at Songdo Campus, Korea.

Duhigg, Charles (2012). The Power of Habit : Why We Do What We Do and How to Change.

London: Random House Books.

Dwiyanto, Agus (2011). Mengembalikan Kepercayaan Publik Melalui Reformasi Birokrasi.

Jakarta: Gramedia.

Fernandez & Rainey (2006) Managing Succesful Organizational Change in Public Sector in

Public Administration Review Ed. Maret-April 2006. Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell.

Glor, Eleanor D. (2006) A Gardener Innovator’s Guide to Innovating in Organizations. Ottawa:

The Innovation Journal. Retrieved from http://www.innovation.cc/books.htm.

Judson, Arnold (1991). Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change.

Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Kotter, John (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business

Review 73 (2).

Scwab, Klaus, Sala-i-Martín, Xavier and Brende, Børge. The Global Competitiveness Report

2013-2014 Full Data Edition. Geneva : World Economic Forum, 2013.

Siddique, Noore Alam (2006). Public Management Reform in Malaysia : Recent Initiatives and

Experiences in International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 19 No. 4. Emerald

Group Publishing Ltd.

Vries & Balazs (1999). Transforming the Mind-Set of The Organization in Administration

Society 30 (6).

Yeung, Henry Wai-Chung (2000) . State Intervention and Neoliberalsm in the Globalizing World

Economy: Lessons from Singapore’s Regionalization Programmme in Pacific Review.